Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Non sequitur. Marxism was a philosophy, and the empirical method is the collection of data on which to to base a theory or derive a conclusion in scientific inquiry. Therefore, how does the failure of the application of Marxist ideology in real life lead to a demonstrated weakness in the empirical method?

I should apologize, my previous post was admittedly somewhat convoluted.
The attempt to implement Marxism was born, in my estimation, of a somewhat arrogant mentality and of looking at the issue at face value. Indeed you're right, it's not really the case that empiricism or the scientific method are wrong, but rather how people view them.

Quote:

Additionally, Straw Man. Nobody's making the argument that empirical analysis is sufficient to lead to the whole "truth" (whatever it may be), but it is by far our best possible toolbox for the purpose....or to be more accurate, if ever we find a better alternative, it will be incorporated into that same toolbox. So, since you're trying to invoke the "other ways of knowing" argument, why don't you give a few examples?

A lot of people make that argument, and with it, some assumptions. They believe that empiricism is not only the best way to create an airplane or machine gun, or otherwise explain hard facts, but also the best way to live and regard life. Richard Dawkins is a good example, as well as a mass of people who claim, rather inanely, religious faith to be evil and blinding.

The point is not to find an alternative to empiricism; we already know that casting spells will not manufacture gold or allow one to fly, but rather to rectify the very mentality or consciousness that people hold towards existence. It would be wrong, in my view, to approach God or the divine as though they could be understood in human terms. Likewise, it would be wrong to hold empiricism and science as a god, which I feel some people do even if they would never admit to such a thing. The two concepts should and do ideally occupy different levels in man's awareness. Newton, for instance, used empirical methods to correctly determine physical laws, but simultaneously acknowledged a divine nature behind it all. He was willing to admit that what he discovered was neither whole nor absolute, and this is how scientists and people in general should conduct themselves.

Likewise, religious people would be idiots to deny, in the modern age, the efficacy of science and its method. They should not place faith on the same level as science, for the two are fundamentally different and should take different places in human intellect and character.

I should apologize, my previous post was admittedly somewhat convoluted.
The attempt to implement Marxism was born, in my estimation, of a somewhat arrogant mentality and of looking at the issue at face value. Indeed you're right, it's not really the case that empiricism or the scientific method are wrong, but rather how people view them.

In other words, by making an example of the supposed arrogance of those who tried to implement the Marxist ideology, you're trying to accuse those who hold the scientific method in the highest regard of the same arrogance; in short, you're simply making an argumentum ad hominem, without trying to explain why they're wrong. Noted.

Quote:

A lot of people make that argument, and with it, some assumptions. They believe that empiricism is not only the best way to create an airplane or machine gun, or otherwise explain hard facts, but also the best way to live and regard life. Richard Dawkins is a good example, as well as a mass of people who claim, rather inanely, religious faith to be evil and blinding.

The point is not to find an alternative to empiricism; we already know that casting spells will not manufacture gold or allow one to fly, but rather to rectify the very mentality or consciousness that people hold towards existence. It would be wrong, in my view, to approach God or the divine as though they could be understood in human terms. Likewise, it would be wrong to hold empiricism and science as a god, which I feel some people do even if they would never admit to such a thing. The two concepts should and do ideally occupy different levels in man's awareness. Newton, for instance, used empirical methods to correctly determine physical laws, but simultaneously acknowledged a divine nature behind it all. He was willing to admit that what he discovered was neither whole nor absolute, and this is how scientists and people in general should conduct themselves.

Likewise, religious people would be idiots to deny, in the modern age, the efficacy of science and its method. They should not place faith on the same level as science, for the two are fundamentally different and should take different places in human intellect and character.

Your repeated attempt at an ad hominem aside, I can summarize your three paragraphs' worth of text by pointing to Stephen Jay Gould's concept of non-overlapping magisteria. Which brings me to this point; if you're going to argue that a God exists, then that amounts to an existence claim, and thus a scientific claim which can, in principle, tested for the material effects of such an existence. If science and faith are genuinely non-overlapping magisteria, then supernatural beings could not possibly have any effect on the real world; in that case, what does it matter if they exist or not?

NOMA only exists as a concept because there is no evidence for the existence of a deity. You're just trying to defend an indefensible point by trying to place it beyond the scope of rational inquiry, without any justification for it.

Quote:

See above.

I believe I asked you for some examples of the "other ways of knowing" you alluded to in your previous post. I'm still waiting.

I'd say that if you're letting one man's crusade erode your faith, you probably didn't have as much faith to begin with. Better to start reexamining your beliefs now before you have a crisis at a bad time, and choose whether to continue believing or to put it down for good.

Be polite to your fellow forum members
Do not insult or harass other members for their life choices, no matter how strongly you disagree with them. Discussion is always welcome, but harassing people will not be tolerated.

No meta-posting
Do not debate the thread in the thread. If you want to argue the rules, contact me (or another member of staff) directly.

I get the feeling you're confused as to what exactly I'm speaking against here. I am not challenging science or empiricism. I am not trying to validate the specific claims of any one religion. What I am trying to dispel is the notion that religious faith as a general concept is negative or inherently contrary to intelligent thought.

Quote:

Which brings me to this point; if you're going to argue that a God exists, then that amounts to an existence claim, and thus a scientific claim which can, in principle, tested for the material effects of such an existence.

Quote:

I believe I asked you for some examples of the "other ways of knowing" you alluded to in your previous post. I'm still waiting.

To which I preemptively responded:

Quote:

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos.

The whole idea of religion, then, is not to discover any hard facts, but to form a psychological basis for people to internalize so that they can better cope with said facts. The existence of religion and the concept of God are intertwined with, in my understanding, the very fact that we are at all self-aware (a concept which is in itself difficult if not impossible to define). Empiricism can explain everything that can be observed, from gravity to the chemical workings of the brain, but it cannot explain, in the end, why we have souls there at all to observe anything with. Nor could it ever hope to explain or encompass the breadth of matter, which appears to be infinite.
At some point, these mysteries escape the scope of human perception, and language, which forms the cornerstone of our science and rationality, is no longer effective in portraying them. In the past, the sky was the limit, since no one could hope to go beyond it to see what exactly was going on up there. Now, even as science advances, the very nature of being and its semantics are still in question.

There is supposedly a Buddhist saying that "Buddha is in the heart". If the soul cannot be discerned, then I would say that the divine truly does exist within this unknowable region. Why must a god exist then, you say? Because there is order in the universe, and there would have to be some sort of "intelligence" behind the laws of matter.

It seems like you wanted an explanation on why God should exist. I have summarily provided that explanation.

In my opinion, religion in its ideal form does not claim to know or preach in the same way that science and engineering do, but rather to temper and remind people of what we do not know as tiny beings in the vast existence of the cosmos.

Petitio principii. Why does it necessarily take religion to remind people of what they do not yet know, when the same can be achieved by learning the extent of what we do know through scientific inquiry?

Quote:

The whole idea of religion, then, is not to discover any hard facts, but to form a psychological basis for people to internalize so that they can better cope with said facts. The existence of religion and the concept of God are intertwined with, in my understanding, the very fact that we are at all self-aware (a concept which is in itself difficult if not impossible to define). Empiricism can explain everything that can be observed, from gravity to the chemical workings of the brain, but it cannot explain, in the end, why we have souls there at all to observe anything with. Nor could it ever hope to explain or encompass the breadth of matter, which appears to be infinite.

Again, petitio principii. On what basis do you make the statement that "souls" exist?

Quote:

At some point, these mysteries escape the scope of human perception, and language, which forms the cornerstone of our science and rationality, is no longer effective in portraying them. In the past, the sky was the limit, since no one could hope to go beyond it to see what exactly was going on up there. Now, even as science advances, the very nature of being and its semantics are still in question.

Yet again, petitio principii. On what basis do you claim that faith can answer the questions science cannot?

Quote:

There is supposedly a Buddhist saying that "Buddha is in the heart". If the soul cannot be discerned, then I would say that the divine truly does exist within this unknowable region.

Putting aside your petitio principii that a "soul" exists to be discerned, if you claim the divine is unknowable, then you must know that the "unknowable" exists....but to assert the existence of the unknowable is to claim knowledge of the unknowable, in which case, it cannot be unknowable. So, which is it?

Quote:

Why must a god exist then, you say? Because there is order in the universe, and there would have to be some sort of "intelligence" behind the laws of matter.

Okay everyone, just calm down. The purpose of this thread is not to sanctify or vilify Religion. It is merely to discuss our personal beliefs in an atmosphere of equality and possible acceptance. That having been said, please cease with trying to prove faith as logical or illogical. Personal anecdotes aside, the value, purpose or validity of religion is not up for debate in this thread.

^This is not a place to discuss the validity of Darwinism or Evolution (outside of strict personal beliefs).

That being said, Berlinkski is a bit of a hack. He's got a great disposition, but his core arguments always focus on not trying to disprove what we know (or think we know), but rather emphasizing constantly what we do not know or lack the proper means of knowing (Berlinkski has an obsession with transitional fossils that borders on the silly (a recent episode of Futurama made fun of the quirk, albeit with a composite character of many evolution naysayers)).

Okay everyone, just calm down. The purpose of this thread is not to sanctify or vilify Religion. It is merely to discuss our personal beliefs in an atmosphere of equality and possible acceptance. That having been said, please cease with trying to prove faith as logical or illogical. Personal anecdotes aside, the value, purpose or validity of religion is not up for debate in this thread.

^This is not a place to discuss the validity of Darwinism or Evolution (outside of strict personal beliefs).

That being said, Berlinkski is a bit of a hack. He's got a great disposition, but his core arguments always focus on not trying to disprove what we know (or think we know), but rather emphasizing constantly what we do not know or lack the proper means of knowing (Berlinkski has an obsession with transitional fossils that borders on the silly (a recent episode of Futurama made fun of the quirk, albeit with a composite character of many evolution naysayers)).

James, I was trying to avoid that kind of argument in my initial post, and you yourself stated this is no place for such an argument, and you are correct in that.

As Nightwish posted originally:

Quote:

No off-topic posts
The purpose of this thread is for members to state their religion or spiritual focus (or lack thereof). This can include explanations and justifications, provided you stick to personal history and not the history/tenets of the religion itself, or questions about the same.

Therefore allow me to qualify why I posted about Berlinski.
The point of posting Berlinski is that he's telling people to question, and that is a good thing.

During my own personal spiritual journey, Berlinski caused me to question both theism and atheism, and realize that the fact is we do not have the answers.

Therefore, we must turn to faith of one sort or another.
Be that faith religious or irreligious.
Like it or not atheism is still faith or belief.

Both Theism and Atheism are arguments to ignorance.
Theists put forward the claim: Because there is no evidence against G, therefore G must exist.
While atheists put forward the claim: Because there is no evidence of G, therefore G must not exist.
Both are logical fallacies, and THAT is whay Berlinski is saying.
Because of people like Berlinski I did not become an atheist when I left the Thelemic belief system.
Instead I chose to look towards spiritualism and became a Zen Buddhist (two decades ago).
I followed that religion for a very short time until I was introduced to Aryeh Kaplan's work (Meditation and the Bible) by a friend from Israel.
After that I became immersed in reading both scientific (mostly theoretical physics) and Kabbalistic works.
It's from all the research over the years that I gained a Spinozian view of nature and the possibility that a thing beyond nature may have created it.
Whether that thing is intelligent or divine, as we understand those concepts, is another matter entirely.
This is why people like Berlinski are a breath of fresh air compared to the fundamentalist theists and fundamentalist atheists (esp. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens).
Challenging the status quo ought to be the mantra of all skeptics and it should include challenging science as well as belief, which is why I question everything and do not believe anything out of blind devotion.

Ok just for reading a post, 2 before mine. I will try not to rage and define this, lol.

Atheist is some1 that hates everything, does not believe in any sort of superstition, does not believe that there was even a god a some point, and pretty much wants to believe all religion is retarded.

No. An atheist is simply someone who believes there are no gods. No more is required. We don't have to hate everything, or indeed, anything. We don't even have to believe all religion is retarded.

Quote:

Now if you don't mind your friends' religion, or you don't believe or follow in a religion but support it. If you believe in some of the history, such as jesus, the term you're looking for is Agnostic

An agnostic is someone who's on the fence regarding the existence of gods. He doesn't have to support religion or believe Jesus existed in any way, shape, or form.

Anh_Minh spoke for me here. I'm an atheist but I don't think religion is retarded, that is a mere thought from the person.

Maybe time to find a new religion?

With the recent release of a certain game by NISA, I have new goddesses to worship :

There! My new goddesses! And they are cute too!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huszaro

of course that is the proper term for both, yet the way I've explained is how everyone treats it here.

Because words factors in an opinion towards others rather than simplicity?

It is not an explanation. It is your purview.

__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.